Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 17:28:39 -0400

> I'd like to request that we specifically test for consensus on
> deprecating "l=" through the usual +1/-1 approach. No miring, just a
> vote.

Semantics first: we don't "vote" here.

OK, that taken care of, it's a fair request, because there's been a
lot of discussion about it.  We certainly have a good base of support
for deprecating "l=".

So I'll ask it this way, starting a new thread for it:
I determine from discussion that there's enough support for
deprecating "l=" to qualify as rough consensus *if* there's not much
objection to it.  It's the objection we need to gauge.  Please post to
this thread if you object to deprecating "l=" in 4871bis.  You may say
why you object, but please keep it brief, and let's not have a lot of
discussion of it here.  If there's enough objection to derail
deprecation, we will leave it alone.

You may also weigh in as objecting if you don't want to delay the
document by doing this.  I'll let this go until 25 May, or until
there's enough objection that we have our answer, whichever comes
first.  If we decide to deprecate it, I'll ask Murray to make the
edits, and then we'll need to have the working group approve the
result, so I expect that'll take another two weeks or so -- say, until
11 June.

Have at it.

Barry, as chair
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 14:39:30 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:29 PM
> To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Consider deprecating "l="
> 

I object mainly for procedural reasons, and not technical ones:

- I don't want to hold up -bis any longer;
- the PS-DS promotion "rules" say we should cut stuff that's not actually in use, but this is;
- we therefore don't have any data to conclude that there isn't anyone out there that finds it exceptionally useful despite the dangers

-MSK

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 15:38:05 -0700

> - we therefore don't have any data to conclude that there isn't anyone out
> there that finds it exceptionally useful despite the dangers

oops.  he's right.  it /is/ in use and we have no basis for claiming that those 
using it find no benefit in it.

Hence (and with regret):

   -1

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 23:51:02 +0200

> - we therefore don't have any data to conclude that there isn't anyone out there that finds it exceptionally useful despite the dangers

+1 (especially for reasons 2 and 3).

/rolf

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 14:56:51 -0700

> - we therefore don't have any data to conclude that there isn't anyone out there that finds it exceptionally useful despite the dangers

Yes we do have plenty of data supporting its use. It works great
irrespective of the FUD spread about it, and I provided that data
at  great length in the past.

This process has run amok.

Mike

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 14:52:18 -0700

> deprecation, we will leave it alone.

I object. I've already asked whether there's been one
documented case of ill effect in 5+ years. Crickets.

Mike

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 19:06:15 -0400

I object.

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 May 2011 00:14:36 -0000

I think it was a mistake to include l= in the first place, but I
find Murray's arguments against taking it out now persuasive.

I would also really like to have a better idea of how people are
using it, notably, for all those messages where l= doesn't cover
the whole body, what's in the naked part.

R's,
John

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 20:14:35 -0400

Barry Leiba wrote:
>> objection to it. �It's the objection we need to gauge. �Please post to
>> this thread if you object to deprecating "l=" in 4871bis. �You may say
>> discussion of it here. �If there's enough objection to derail
> That was quick.  I believe we already have enough objections to say
> that we do NOT have rough consensus for deprecating l= at this time.
> I'll close the issue in the tracker (issue #26), and we will leave it
> as it is.
> 
> Of course, folks may, if it makes them feel good, continue to register
> objections here.
> 
> :-D

But that still shouldn't mean the functional and technical 
informations should not be clarified.  Maybe the "two weeks or so" can 
be used to do that?

To me, the basic issue is that "l=" consideration is not isolated to 
itself - other factors such has what headers to sign, reducing message 
content complexity, removing items that could be stripped for security 
purposes (i.e. HTML), etc, all ideas that basically mean "Know Your 
Target!"  If we can describe it better, then maybe we can give the 
readers the benefit of the doubt they may decide themselves its not 
needed for their purpose and implementators a better idea how to 
expose the option to operators.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 19:02:36 -0400

:-D

Barry, as chair

---

From: "J.D. Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 07:41:26 -0700

> find Murray's arguments against taking it out now persuasive.

Agreed (which is a -1 to removal.)

> the whole body, what's in the naked part.

Agreed.

--
J.D. Falk
the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions

---

From: Steve Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 08:29:09 -0700

> find Murray's arguments against taking it out now persuasive.

+1

> the whole body, what's in the naked part.

l=0 is the other variant I've noticed, covering just the headers. It's
something I can see some value in doing, if your main concerns
are something other than phishing.

Cheers,
  Steve

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 19:43:41 +0100

> Of course, folks may, if it makes them feel good, continue to register

Yes, leave it be. Point out some problems if you wish, but no more. People  
seem to be using it.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html